User talk:Oranges Juicy

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Oranges Juicy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Oranges Juicy. You have new messages at Feinoha's talk page.
Message added 00:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Feinoha  Talk 00:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nicolae Ceaușescu "regime" discussion

(Moved here.)

Hello. I have reverted at Nicolae Ceaușescu because there was no NPOV issue. When the word "regime" is used in place of terms such as "presidency" or "government" as had been in this article unsparingly, it becomes a label. All I did was rewrite most of the sentences. There had been 20 mentions of "regime" but I only changed 19 of them; I found one to be legit in that it was part of a quote. I've tried to raise this subject in the past but it has attracted very little feedback. It appears that most people like to use this term for unfavourable leaders and periods within a state's history. Normally the very mention of the "such and such regime" is enough to betray the publisher's bias since what follows will never be complimentary to the system that is being referred to. This means that any proponent of the system in question would have a valid response to his antagonistic publisher. If you would like links as to how the term "regime" is known to be a loaded term, I can link these to you, but for now I'll guide you to one of our articles: see Loaded language#Examples. --OJ (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

PS. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 12#Obama regime where I left a comment shortly after my first edit. Thanks. --OJ (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm very concerned with your reason for reverting the edit. You seem to believe the term "regime" is not permissible on this project. You are misinformed. As for your concern that it is used for "unfavourable leaders?" What is an "unfavourable leader" and "unfavourable" to whom? However, while this project does seek to represent both majority and minority viewpoints, it does not whitewash articles to treat all viewpoints equally. Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PROFRINGE. More specifically, if you Google "Ceaușescu's regime" you'll see several non-Wikipedia sources. If you Google "Ceaușescu" & "regime", you'll see even more. The article only reflects those sources. Your own admission, that you "only changed" 19 of 20 uses of the word "regime," violates WP:POV. Please read it. You can't use this project to impose your own views, especially when the word you dislike is commonly used. I also believe your edit, and by extension your position, merits further discussion in the appropriate forum. X4n6 (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

All right thanks for the reply. First of all, I have never denied that sources use the word "regime" nor have I stated that the term is not permissible. If you look across the site you'll notice that on a few occasions, the word is used properly to reflect what it means but for more than 90% of the time, it is used as a pejorative label by an editor seeking to disparage the system in question, and it is all too common that this editor will hide behind the "sources use it" argument. For the record, sources may also refer to some leaders as tyrants and as such, there is no problem with an editor inserting this information. However, problems will arise after an editor makes a redaction to refer to the person as president and then the original editor reverts to "tyrant". Your first question is what is an unfavourable leader, and to whom is he unfavourable?. To me, the likes of Barrack Obama is an unfavourable leader as were his predecessors because I do not support the western states as they stand. A source such as RT will often refer to the Obama regime or the Washington regime. CNN however will never employ this term but it will speak of the Putin regime or the Moscow regime which Russian media would never use. The final question is whether any representatives of a system will make self-references using "regime". If they do not, then the term is blatantly loaded - no two ways about it. And as I said, unlike editors here, publishers have the freedom to sensationalise and this is why they can refer to regimes as well as to tyrants and other terms. I believe this rationale is good enough to deem "regime" inappropriate where alternatives exist.

You have referred to my replacement terms such as "government" to be NPOV. Whilst I generally appreciate that the new choice of words may be deemed breaches of NPOV, I require some more information from you over this one. If you believe that within the 19 amendments that the words I have chosen are inappropriate then I'd like to know which words you believe better fit the examples. Now obviously this is even difficult for me because it would be a case by case assessment. My questions for you are these which follow:

1) Do you believe that when referring to a body of people with powers that regime and a government are two different things to the point that in country A it is a government but in country B it is a regime, and that following "democratic" revolution in country B that country B has made a transition from regime to government the same way that a kingdom can become a republic through changes?

If the answer is "yes", then do you believe this subsection to be incorrectly labelled?. If so, do you believe the correct course of action is to go on a mission to replace "government" or "administration" with the word "regime"?

If the answer is "yes" then can you provide sources to show that "government" and "administration" are a breach of NPOV?

If the answer is "yes" then what do you believe the writers in the following citations are actually referring to when mentioning "government"? [1], [2], [3], [4]

2) Do you believe that the Ceaușescu government and Ceaușescu regime are two different things which are both legitimate in their own right? If so, when should we use one and when should be use the other?

3) Why do you feel terms such as "administration" and "government" are examples of loaded language and that somehow a term that one government calls another but never calls its own self should be the appropriate term?

If you can satisfy me here, I'll be the first to revert the changes I have made over the past months. --OJ (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The same batch of questions apply to the more general term "rule" (e.g. life under the Communist regime vs Communist rule). Again, sources for "rule" are easy to find so I just need to know whether rule and regime mean different things, if so which do we use and when? Or is "rule" considered POV and if so why? etc. --OJ (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Your response makes the problem quite clear. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and function of this project. Clearly you believe Wikipedia is a publication that encourages individual editorial opinion and expression. But it is not and it does not. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. Then review WP:Wikipedia is not about YOU. You are certainly entitled to any belief system. But this is not the forum for you to promote your own views. See WP:NOR. This project only republishes reliably sourced information. To be clear, your unilateral removal of the word "regime" for no other reason that your subjective bias regarding that term is what constitutes POV violations - not to the words you replaced "regime" with. So your tangential screed entirely missed the point, so I will not follow down your rabbit hole. No one cares about your personal views regarding Obama - just as your views about Ceaușescu should not be evident in your edits - especially, when you fail to provide reliable sources in support of them. If you can conform your contributions to that which you can reliably source, the project certainly welcomes those contributions - as long as you accept your work will be reviewed by other editors. But if you are only prepared to contribute personal beliefs, opinions and just contribute to be doctrinaire, that's considered POV pushing and this project is probably not for you. Those efforts are likely better utilized elsewhere. They will just get reverted here. In the relatively short time you've been here, you've already been given some tools of trust indicating that you have some knowledge of this project and how it works. So surely you know this. X4n6 (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This conversation continues on Talk:Nicolae Ceaușescu. --OJ (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

February 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Expulsion of the Albanians 1877–1878.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you should be posting this warning to yourself. --OJ (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You must use the talk page when you are asked to argue your changes. The explanation was everything you had to give. Best regards! Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Ktrimi991: Please don't template the regulars. It is considered to be an act of bad faith. If you and another editor don't see eye to eye on content, you should enter into a discussion on the understanding that the editor you have a dispute with knows policies and guidelines at least as well as you do. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna. Thoughtful sentiment. It all ended well with both of us seeing the viewpoint of the other so I couldn't possibly worry about this minor issue. All the best. --OJ (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk page stalker Iryna Harpy it is obvious both I and OJ know policies and guidelines. The issue was solved after OJ explained their changes on the relevant talk page. Next time (if there will be a next time) make sure you understand the situation before you make comments or give advices you were not asked for. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: It is most certainly not 'obvious' that you understand the nuances as is evidenced by the fact of your having templated OJ. You are, essentially, a 'newbie'. As such, it would be instructive for you to properly acquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL and take it on board in the good faith manner in which it is being extended. Thank you for your understanding, and happy editing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy I am not a newbie, I created my account some four years ago and I am part of various Wikimedia projects and activities. It would be instructive for you to properly acquaint yourself with policies and guidelines and understand when you can give advices. policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles and further goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia. Make sure you understand they are not a tool to open unnecessary discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Czech Republic Barnstar of National Merit
		In appreciation of your patience and commitment for minor editing and fixing misinterpretations and distorted facts. ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Well thank you ThecentreCZ! This means a lot to me. I'll copy-paste the award onto my user page at some point shortly. I'm very pleased someone else sees sense!!!! :)))) --OJ (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis and allegation of relationship to Iranians

@KansasBear. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the subject as nobody else to have edit-warred at Azerbaijanis has done so since I began the discussion on 1 March. Before I get onto those things I will address your queries about my conduct:

1. You said, "Actually, you can template "regulars" when said "regular" reinitiates an edit war."

• It does not say this anywhere on Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars and nowhere is it even suggested in a way that might be ambiguous. The page only discusses the problems with sending templates to regulars. In addition to your observation, the template was sent before the gap in my edits, not after the pause. So the template was totally unwarranted. If assuming good faith (which would have been easier had the message been drafted personally), one needs to look further at who the warning editor is. Obviously if it had been a third person with no involvement in the dispute and this person warned all warring parties to "take it steady" because of the rule in place then this might have appeared reasonable. But for a warring party to issue a template warning to his rival, well this is much like saying "keep out of the way, your edit is not standing and if you continue, I will report you for your part in a breach of conditions". On this note, is there any reason I should not have sent the very same editwarring template to LouisAragon? No.

2. With regards Sebebineydiki, you need to realise something. I made bold changes to Azerbaijanis. Each was instantly blanked by one of a tiny handful of editors watching the article with the purpose of defending the point. I discussed the issue on the talk page of LouisAragon, the talk page itself, and on another person's talk page. No response, no answers to my points, but continued reverts with abrupt summaries. I took a rest from the article but then found another editor to be reinstating the same version as I was - and not surprisingly, for all his wrongdoings he was just being reverted and all with rank comments in the summary but no actual attempt at discussion. Moreover, many of the "reverting editors" were IPs who were primed for their one task. Interesting how when the page became protected, there was no "IP protest" on the talk page. But that's another story. When it became apparent that there were other editors (albeit one) who favoured my revision, I felt it might be a good time to return to the article. That said, if there had been constructive comments on the talk page or any replies to my points where I discussed it, I would have far rather spoken with the individual until reaching an agreement or realising that conflict solution was required. When everyone singularly refuses to discuss a person's points or refute them despite numerous efforts by the individual, I believe that it can only be so long before this individual is justified in returning to the article. Seeing someone that agrees with you after reasonable time has passed for people to make their responses is - in my eyes - a good enough time to return to a page. The only alternative for me was to have made my points, have those points ignored, and then retire on the basis of the other revision being favourable to a tiny handful. I'm sorry Kansas Bear, but this is not why I became an editor on English Wiki. --OJ (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Kosovo status

Hi! I've seen your removal of content at the Kosovo's article. Even though as country with the disputed status, meaning that it seeks recognition from the international community following 2008 declaration of independence, Kosovo's territory was last defined by the international community under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 in 1999. That is the official and widely accepted document (agreement, resolution) by all sides affected by the matter. Meaning, de jure accepted in the international law as such.

Any further development of events concerning Kosovo such as the 2006 bilateral talks between Serbia and Kosovo's authorities, 2008 unilateral declaration of independence, or 2013 Brussels Agreement do not affect immediately (only for possible future changes) de jure status of Kosovo, unless Serbia recognize Kosovo as sovereign country or if Security Council of the UN passes a new resolution concerning Kosovo's status and thus way replace the most recent - UNSCR 1244, resolution adopted in 1999 following the 1998–1999 Kosovo War.--AirWolf ^talk 23:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Airwolf, you may be preaching to the converted here. But I think you missed my point. It is heavily stressed that Kosovo is a disputed territory. Now by saying UNSCR1244 has "de jure" status is good as saying Serbia has de jure territorial integrity over Kosovo as if to merely suggest Kosovo is in the hands of rebels. If we know what is de jure then we cannot say it is disputed: however the pro-Kosovo independence population challenge this status - rightly or wrongly - and therefore it is disputed, thus without clear de jure status.

The other matter concerned a passage which merely stated that 111 countries recognise Kosovo as independent. This was followed by de facto. I think this term does not apply here, nor does its opposite term de jure. 111 recognise and that is it, if you see my point. Of course, the proponents of independence have the de facto control of Kosovo but this has been the case since 1999 when FRY forces withdrew. This is why I objected to those terms. --OJ (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Oranges Juicy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)